H.R. 3752, The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004
Introduced by Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 is designed to promote the development of the emerging commercial human space flight industry (space tourism) by putting in place a clear, balanced regulatory regime.

"The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 represents a long and thorough process beginning last July with a joint House-Senate hearing, a Space Subcommittee hearing last fall and a policy roundtable with experts in the commercial space transportation industry late last year," said Rohrabacher. "H.R. 3752 calls for streamlined and careful regulations for nurturing this new commercial human space flight industry while ensuring public safety."

Major provisions of the legislation are designed to:

* eliminate any confusion about who should regulate flights of suborbital rockets carrying human beings by explicitly locating all commercial space flight authority under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST);
* make it easier to launch new types of reusable suborbital rockets by allowing AST to issue experimental permits that can be granted more quickly and with fewer requirements than licenses;
* extend the existing liability indemnification regime for the entire commercial space transportation industry (including licensed, non-experimental commercial human space launches) for a period of three years, but the bill will not grant indemnification for flights conducted under experimental permits, which will be more lightly regulated; and
* require a study on how best to gradually eliminate the liability indemnification regime for the commercial space transportation industry by 2008 or as soon as possible thereafter.

Actually, this particular bill is designed to have the opposite effect. It will clarify, and in some cases relax, existing regulations. This will have a positive effect on the growing private space industry.

I cannot dispute that it would relax regulations and help grow the space industry. Nevertheless, it makes the government's interference more legitimate, and that I don't like.

The Legionnaire wrote:

Quote:

Ugh, the government is trying to squeeze its way in.

Actually, this particular bill is designed to have the opposite effect. It will clarify, and in some cases relax, existing regulations. This will have a positive effect on the growing private space industry.

The government is set up by you and all the other flight enthusiasts. Democracy is a beautiful thing to behold.

Regulation can be painful, but if it is actually fair and fairly straight forward then its a boon. Mostly reg's make you do what you would or should do anyway. If we want flying a rocket to get near flying a plane or driving a car then a lot of people will all be in on it. Don't you want to be sure that they won't smack into you at mach 25 because of a lack of traffic control?

If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. If there is too much risk, then people won't be willing to take it on. If there are significant problems where people are likely to get hit at mach 25 (and presumably die), then they won't be willing to ride. Government regulations are not necessary to get businesses to coordinate rocket flights. They will see the problem and proceed to fix it themselves.

I had no hand in setting up the government, nor did I ever consent to its power over me.

idiom wrote:

The government is set up by you and all the other flight enthusiasts. Democracy is a beautiful thing to behold.

Regulation can be painful, but if it is actually fair and fairly straight forward then its a boon. Mostly reg's make you do what you would or should do anyway. If we want flying a rocket to get near flying a plane or driving a car then a lot of people will all be in on it. Don't you want to be sure that they won't smack into you at mach 25 because of a lack of traffic control?

If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. If there is too much risk, then people won't be willing to take it on. If there are significant problems where people are likely to get hit at mach 25 (and presumably die), then they won't be willing to ride. Government regulations are not necessary to get businesses to coordinate rocket flights. They will see the problem and proceed to fix it themselves.

I had no hand in setting up the government, nor did I ever consent to its power over me.

idiom wrote:

The government is set up by you and all the other flight enthusiasts. Democracy is a beautiful thing to behold.

Regulation can be painful, but if it is actually fair and fairly straight forward then its a boon. Mostly reg's make you do what you would or should do anyway. If we want flying a rocket to get near flying a plane or driving a car then a lot of people will all be in on it. Don't you want to be sure that they won't smack into you at mach 25 because of a lack of traffic control?

At those speeds, there isn't even any mess.

I'm a game developer and I own an own company.. what if I'm going to build space rockets similar as John Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace) and test it above your house... I have anough money to keep continue even without commercial succes... for years in the future...
Who's going to stop me when debris fall on your home ?
We just "NEED" Regulations.. so people don't try things that will end killing a lot of people..
Look at Blue Ridge Nebula Airlines.. what if they get more advanced and blow things up with manny deads... that's why things have to be "checked" and regulated.

It's called legal liability, one of the few interferences of government I agree with. If you dump debris on my home or cause undue racquet, then you are legally liable for it, and therefore I have a good chance of winning a civil case against you. Do it again, and I'll sue you again. I think you see where this is going: it makes sense for a person not to do that because of the legal costs involved.

Sigurd wrote:

I'm a game developer and I own an own company.. what if I'm going to build space rockets similar as John Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace) and test it above your house... I have anough money to keep continue even without commercial succes... for years in the future...Who's going to stop me when debris fall on your home ?We just "NEED" Regulations.. so people don't try things that will end killing a lot of people..Look at Blue Ridge Nebula Airlines.. what if they get more advanced and blow things up with manny deads... that's why things have to be "checked" and regulated.

It's called legal liability, one of the few interferences of government I agree with. If you dump debris on my home or cause undue racquet, then you are legally liable for it, and therefore I have a good chance of winning a civil case against you. Do it again, and I'll sue you again. I think you see where this is going: it makes sense for a person not to do that because of the legal costs involved.

And I think.. it makes sence to stop the people "BEFORE" they are going to do it... not sue them "after" they have done it.

regulations are good to a point, beyond that point (like they are now), they stifle the industry being regulated. for normal aviation, the fact that the point is so high is reasonable, because it is so widespread, well developed, and lack of them could cost many lives. in space, you still need a few regs just to make sure any idiot doesn't try to build and fly a rocket, but since it is a fledgling industry, they should be limited to just that-- that the idea is sound for experimental flights, and reasonably safe for passenger flights.

The simple fact of the matter is that the current level of regulation in this case by the FAA is extraordinarily onerous. I mean "come on", Who really needs an environment impact study for each and every launch?

In another context, that of the emergence of Chinese space technology, we should all consider that currently the Chinese trail significantly in many areas. But they could rapidly close this gap, because their program is currently run some very bright and innovative engineers, without bureaucrats second-guessing every decision.

This bill H.R. 3752 will have a marginally positive effect in allowing American engineers like Burt Rutan to do what we do best.

As the Chinese close the technology gap, we should thank Congress and the FAA for stifling American space technology.

_________________"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
P.J. O'Rourke

I saw a doco about modding a 737 for private use. They had a board room size table covered two deep in choc full lever arch folders detailing the changes made, diagrams of each bolt, every fragment of material used. Every page had to be signed by an FAA official.

Considering this was a pre-licensed vehicle with interior changes for private use.... yeah thats a bit onerous.

But they could rapidly close this gap, because their program is currently run some very bright and innovative engineers, without bureaucrats second-guessing every decision.

Well, China is a Communist country, so there probably are more bureaucrats, not less. The reason China can move quickly is because they've decided that space flight is a national priority, and thus devote enormous resources to it.